On 5/10/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
> [ ] +0 I don't care
> [x] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
I do not feel the draft resolution adequately addresses several
remarks made in the discussion thread.
The resolution should address issues raised as to the scope of the PMC
and the use of the commons namespace. Comments on the other thread
included remarks like
* "We'll do whatever the community wants to do. If someone proposes a
Ruby library and we have a community interested in creating and
supporting a Ruby library, then it would of course be strongly
considered. "
and
* "Multiple PMCs, one website. So we'd have Java Commons, Ruby
Commons, BobsYourUncle Commons PMCs, and they'd all share a
commons.apache.org website."
But, as it stands, the resolution implies that the proposed PMC will
be excluded to Java and would own both the top-level "Commons" project
name and the "commons.apache.org" namespace. Neither remark is
addressed.
This has been discussed in other threads about Commons going TLP and
from my memory it was agreed that it would be java focused. Jakarta
had/has oversight problems even though it is java focused - other
languages would just make it worse so its not a route I would like us
to go down.
If we are open to a TLP "Ruby Commons" or "DotNet Commons", then we
should reflect that openness in the resolution and in the project
name. We can't use "Java" (been there, Sun complained). But we can
preserve the Jakarta name, and leave the door open for an top-level
Apache XML Commons or a top-level Apache C# Commons. So why not the
"Apache Jakarta Commons Project"?
IMO this seems OT to the Commons proposal - its for the ASF to decide
whether similar Ruby, DotNet, etc TLPs are appropriate. Since Commons
exists and has been using that name and has a community I don't see
why it shouldn't use the namespace. If communities of other languages
come along in the future then whats wrong with them finding a
different, new namespace for themselves. If they existed now and had
been using the name at Apache then I think you would have a case - but
as it stands they don't and so IMO there isn't.
I'm against "Apache Jakarta Commons" since thats what we are now -
there were a few choices on the table - merge Commons upwards to
become Jakarta or move to a TLP. The consensus and proposal was for
the latter.
Or, if we intend that this PMC provide oversight for components in
other languages later, then we should strike the word "Java" from the
resolution now, and clarify our intent.
-1
Time is not of the essence, and I believe we should define the scope
of the PMC and the "commons.apache.org" host name and namespace now,
rather than create FUD later. It took five hundred email messages to
create the commons in the first place, and we can spare a few more to
get the TLP resolution right.
My suggestion is to
* amend the Project name to "Apache Jakarta Commons PMC".
and setup shop as commons.apache.org/jakarta
IMO this is more confusing and see no benefit for Commons of moving
from jakarta.apache.org/commons to commons.apache.org/jakarta.
Let the focus of this PMC remain on Java, but, in the Apache spirit of
openness and collaboration, make way for other Apache Commons projects
in other languages.
IMO using the Commons namespace has no relevance to "openness and
collaboration" for Apache projects in other languages - it just means
they need to come up with a different (maybe better!) name.
Niall
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
